About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

11 Oyez Oyez Bull. Sec. Jud. Admin. 1 (1968)

handle is hein.journals/oyzoyz11 and id is 1 raw text is: The Bulletin of the Section of o yez!I Judicial Administration oyez! CHAIRMAN'S COLUMN To the Members of the Section of Judicial Administration As this issue goes to press, we are preparing for the Midyear Meeting of the Council which will be held in Chicago commencing Saturday, February 17, 1968. At its meeting at 2:00 p.m. that day the Council will discuss and act upon seven reports developed by the Advisory Committees of the American Bar Association's Special Committee on Minimum Standards for the Adminis- tration of Criminal Justice. Chief Judge J. Edward Lumbard of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is Chair- man of this special com- mittee. The reports to be con- sidered are (1) Fair Trial and Free Press compiled by the Advisory Committee C. Frank Reinyder under the Chairmanship of Justice Paul C. Reardon of Massachusetts, (2) Post Conviction Remedies and (3) Appellate Review of Sentences compiled by the Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of Judge Simon E. Sobeloff of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, (4) Pleas of Guilty, (5) Speedy Trial and (6) Joinder and Severance com- piled by the Advisory Committee under the Chairman- ship of Justice Walter V. Schaefer of Illinois, and (7) Providing Defense Services compiled by the Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of Judge Warren E. Burger of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Lumbard Committee will present these reports to the House of Delegates for action by the Association commencing at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, February 19, 1968. As I am sure you know, the Section of Judicial Administration, together with the Section of Criminal Law, has been a co-sponsor of the work of the Lumbard Committee and your Section of- ficers have remained in close contact with the project. I am confident that each of you shares my pride in the outstanding work that has been done by the Lumbard Committee and its Advisory Committees. The Council of the Section will also meet on Sun- day, February 18 at which time it will consider a number of problems in the field of judicial administration as well as receive interim reports of the work of several of the (Continued on page 2) RIGHT TO COUNSEL EXTENDED In a unanimous decision, the United States Su- preme Court recently held that persons on probation have a right to the assistance of counsel in proceedings for revocation of probation or to reimpose a suspended sentence. The decision, written by Mr. Justice Thurgood Marshall, requires that counsel for persons on probation must be permitted to participate in revocation hearings, or when the probationer is indigent, that the state must appoint an attorney to represent him. Calling the ruling a natural extension of the Court's 1963 decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, Marshall said that counsel is re- quired at every stage of a criminal proceeding where subtantial rights of an accused may be affected. The Court's decision came in two cases appealed from the State of Washington, in which Douglas Mempa and William E. Walkling had been committed to prison at hearings at which they were not represented by coun- sel. Mempa had been involved in a burglary while he was on probation, and the judge directed that he serve the ten year burglary sentence originally imposed. Walk- ling, who was on probation from a burglary conviction, subsequently was accused of fourteen forgery offenses, and was committed to serve the fifteen year burglary sentence previously imposed. Attorneys for the State of Washington contended that the men had been adequate- ly represented at their trials, and that probation was an act of grace by the State not required by the Constitu- tion. They said, therefore, that the hearing amounted to deferred sentencing, at which no attorney was necessary. In another case, the Court held in a 6-3 decision that a conviction obtained at a trial at which a defendant was not represented by counsel could not be used against him to enhance his punishment in a subsequent criminal case, in which he has been convicted. Mr. Justice William 0. Douglas, who wrote the majority opinion, held that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be undermined if states were permitted to sen- tence persons to long prison terms under so-called habi- tual criminal statutes based upon pre-Gideon convic- tions in which the defendant had not been represented by counsel. In the trial of the defendant, James C. Bur- gett, in a Texas court, the jury had been told of an earlier forgery conviction in Tennessee, which was ob- tained at a trial at which Burgett had.not been repre- sented by counsel. VOL. 11, NO. I FEBRUARY, 1968 I T

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most